But if it falls under the 2x2 rule in the USA, then it's not "out of Hydro". If you tell the customer it's "out of hydro" (or by law needs to be hydro-tested), you are lying to the customer.

But you are right that it does not exempt it from visual inspection.

Allow me to clarify for the nit picky.....

If it is 5 years past its last hydro date or date of manufacture which ever is later I will not fill it. I am not telling them it needs to be hydro tested I am just refusing to fill the tank. Now if they have proof of a visual inspection (like my scuba tanks) and it falls under the 2x2 rule. I have never seen a paintball tank with a vis inspection sticker.

Can you send me a pm with the name or contact info or web site where I can get my tanks rehydro tested for $12 each?

__________________

Started with a Splatmaster, moved onto a Nelspot 007, then came the Autocockers, then a STERLING Pump, next was a Bob Long defiant then a PM7. As of now I have 10 Sterling Pumps, 2 Phantoms for SC, a CCM SS-25, a PGP and a Sovereign 3.

If it is 5 years past its last hydro date or date of manufacture which ever is later I will not fill it. I am not telling them it needs to be hydro tested I am just refusing to fill the tank. Now if they have proof of a visual inspection (like my scuba tanks) and it falls under the 2x2 rule. I have never seen a paintball tank with a vis inspection sticker.

I'm not a SCUBA guy, but I think Scuba tanks need to be "vis'd (visually inspected yearly). I don't think that is the case for our small paintball tanks. Someone correct me if I am wrong please, but I have never heard of an official visual inspection schedule for paintball tanks.

I'm not a SCUBA guy, but I think Scuba tanks need to be "vis'd (visually inspected yearly). I don't think that is the case for our small paintball tanks. Someone correct me if I am wrong please, but I have never heard of an official visual inspection schedule for paintball tanks.

Yup, that's the inspection where the kid at the shop tells you, "Sorry bro, it's out of date", or "It's not our policy to..."

Someone correct me if I am wrong please, but I have never heard of an official visual inspection schedule for paintball tanks.

That is exactly my point. When a tank is re-certified it either under goes a visual inspection (internal and external) or eddy current testing and the hydrostatic (volumetric expansion) test.

The note reads, "Any cylinder not exceeding two (2) inches in outside diameter and less than two (2) feet in length is exempt from volumetric expansion testing." There is no mention of the tank being exempt form the visual inspection. Since there is no visual inspection sticker on paintball tanks how do you know if the inspection has been done?

If I were a betting man I would wager to say that the inspection has not been done. I am not willing to risk my safety or the safety of the people at the field by filling tanks that have not been inspected even if they are exempt from the hydrostatic testing.

This text is very specific about the manufacturer it is referring to -- Catalina.

However, I don't think Catalina is the only maker of 13ci's now. I'll have to check the manufacturer stamp on my Ninja 13ci, but it doesn't look like my other two 13ci's.

If it's not Catalina, then these 13ci's, if I'm reading this text carefully and specifically, are not exempt.

You are correct to question. While many companies use the same standards / markings there are really no blanket regulations. There are even some very specific exemprions. A prime example is the exemption filed for the Fuel chromoly tanks. They're actually marked "never need testing". If you actually read the exemption it's filed for their specific tanks / markings. It also expires meaning if the company doesn't keep it up to date the exemption is no longer valid and what's written on the tank is a lie.

Also realize this thread was written in 2008. Paintball references go back way further but very few are accurate. Hell, "5 year" tanks really haven't been out that long. The DOT standards do change and also have to be adapted to new products / standards and studies performed. Saying anything is set in stone is kind of silly. The only accurate thing to do is to take the numbers off of your tank and compare to the latest version of the standards.

That is exactly my point. When a tank is re-certified it either under goes a visual inspection (internal and external) or eddy current testing and the hydrostatic (volumetric expansion) test.

The note reads, "Any cylinder not exceeding two (2) inches in outside diameter and less than two (2) feet in length is exempt from volumetric expansion testing." There is no mention of the tank being exempt form the visual inspection. Since there is no visual inspection sticker on paintball tanks how do you know if the inspection has been done?

If I were a betting man I would wager to say that the inspection has not been done. I am not willing to risk my safety or the safety of the people at the field by filling tanks that have not been inspected even if they are exempt from the hydrostatic testing.

But by that argument, why fill any tank that is over 1 year old? It won't have a vis inspection sticker, so why risk everyone's safety?

If the government says small tanks are safe to fill for a longer period (obviously due to smaller cylinders having more inherent strength) why are we challenging that? We have plenty of government rules that don't make sense...this one does. We are going to try to make it more difficult for ourselves? That seems silly. Personally, I'm going to follow the rules. Period. You of course are welcome to make up new rules.

Regardless of what the tank is stamped. The guy in the shed at any of the local fields still wont know how to fill anything smaller then whatever he has on his speedball gun. "so how many ounces is this". Gee you tell me it has a fill nipple and a gauge that says ninja....

But by that argument, why fill any tank that is over 1 year old? It won't have a vis inspection sticker, so why risk everyone's safety?

If the government says small tanks are safe to fill for a longer period (obviously due to smaller cylinders having more inherent strength) why are we challenging that? We have plenty of government rules that don't make sense...this one does. We are going to try to make it more difficult for ourselves? That seems silly. Personally, I'm going to follow the rules. Period. You of course are welcome make up new rules.

No one is suggesting they make their own rules. It boils down to interpretation of the existing rules. I choose to error on the side of safety. This is an extreme sport. There are risks involved, why not try to minimize the risks that you can? You asked why not do an annual vis inspection like they do for scuba. Maybe we should? Personally I do an external vis inspection every time i fill a tank. I need to trust the internals of the tank are still good since the last inspection. I draw the line at 5 years.

No one is suggesting they make their own rules. It boils down to interpretation of the existing rules. I choose to error on the side of safety. This is an extreme sport. There are risks involved, why not try to minimize the risks that you can? You asked why not do an annual vis inspection like they do for scuba. Maybe we should? Personally I do an external vis inspection every time i fill a tank. I need to trust the internals of the tank are still good since the last inspection. I draw the line at 5 years.

That is your prerogative, of course.

I would point out that, in general, the code reserves internal inspections for special services (ammonia, oxygen, etc) and for substitution of eddy current and/or volumetric testing in some cases. For reactive substances and gas you are going to breathe, you want to see that the bottle is clean. You are also betting your safety on the tank's ability to simply contain the gas, something well beyond catastrophic failure.

External inspections in a sport are not as big a deal as in industrial environments where tanks are left alone for long periods only to change hands many more times. Our tanks get handled a lot. Given their own weight, they don't get damaged as readily as larger tanks. You know if it has a ding or severe corrosion from cat pee. People may still try to fill it though.

Federal regulations (and national codes for that matter) are very broad. If they bother to add a specific exception, it is on a good basis. If they do not cover an exact situation, it is because they have not been able to generalize those applications (yet) with a definite need. If a code dances around something within its scope but never hits it, you'll have to fill it in yourself with good reasoning. If you manage to cock something up in a big way, guess what the next addendum will be.